Prucha. Svatos wasn't a bad player he just couldn't cope with the physicality of the NHL.
__________________ “It’s embarrassing. I’m embarrassed to be here right now. It’s not even funny. And it’s just embarrassing, the way we, you know, the energy we have in the room and the way we approach practices and the way we approach this game. It’s not how you’re going to win any games in this league." - Jean-Sebastien Giguere, April 8 2013
Prucha. Svatos wasn't a bad player he just couldn't cope with the physicality of the NHL.
Same with Prucha. He wasn't bad. He was just too weak. The guy couldn't handle defensive responsibility and he got absolutely buried at least once per game.
He scored 30 in 74 GP in 2006-07 at the age of 30, and retired after 2010-11 with 103 in 607. Average 11 goals per 82 games outside of that one season. Bryan Little is the runner-up with an average of 18 goals outside of his 30-goal year; Prucha only averaged 14 after his 30-goal rookie season but wasn't really given playing time (played bottom six a lot) while Little played a lot of 1st/2nd line and PP time.
He scored 30 in 74 GP in 2006-07 at the age of 30, and retired after 2010-11 with 103 in 607. Average 11 goals per 82 games outside of that one season. Bryan Little is the runner-up with an average of 18 goals outside of his 30-goal year; Prucha only averaged 14 after his 30-goal rookie season but wasn't really given playing time (played bottom six a lot) while Little played a lot of 1st/2nd line and PP time.
Clark had zero business being anywhere near 30.
I think this actually may be the best answer. Little shouldn't be included though, he's a pretty good player.
Prucha and Svatos have both been mentioned already (deservedly so).
I don't think people should say Cheechoo, he was pretty good before his knees gave out and he had a few good statistical seasons.
I loved that Rangers fan that said he wouldn't trade Prucha for Crosby
__________________
“The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile, but that it is indifferent. If we can come to terms with this indifference and accept the challenges of life within the boundaries of death, our existence as a species can have genuine meaning and fulfillment. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light.” - Stanley Kubrick
Also, Cheechoo doesn't belong in this thread. He had 28 in the year before Thornton was traded to San Jose, and was on pace for 24-27-51 when Thornton joined the Sharks (7-8-15 in his first 24) which was actually a slightly better start than the previous season (6-5-11 in his first 24, or 21-17-38). As you can see, he was a slow starter, improving his pace by around 25% in the remaining games. Which puts him as a 30-34-64 in 2005-06 if Thornton isn't acquired, assuming the same improvement. If we're going to say that a decently skilled guy who benefited from being the go-to guy for a highly skilled playmaker is the winner of this thread, why not Milan Hejduk? He hit 50 with Forsberg one year, and 30 a couple others. When has he hit/come close to 30 without a highly skilled playmaker (Forsberg, Sakic, Stastny)? He hasn't. Good circumstances for a guy who can put the puck in the net. The difference is that Cheechoo was traded and lost his confidence, and it killed his career. He could have continued on as a perennial 30-goal guy. He had the skill, and probably still has the shot to park a few in the net if a team were to take the chance on him. Ottawa was a bad fit. San Jose was a great fit. He might not be a bad option for Chicago, actually, if he can recapture his magic. Play Kane as the 2C and take advantage of his playmaking abilities, utilize Cheechoo's shot. It would be kind of an Oates/Hull situation where Chechoo's job is basically to find the scoring spot and wait for Kane to get him the puck. Kane's shot and the fact that they'd be against 2nd units are threatening enough to offset the improved QoC compared to the early 90s when Hull could just stand around while Oates did all of the work.
